Achieving peace agreements is the only way to avoid casu alties and bloodshed in military clashes. At all times, the governments of the defending countries sought to put an end to the destruction and killings. To achieve peace, the parties always resort to negotiations. And only through compromise is an outcome suitable for all parties to the conflict possible.
Negotiations
The concept of agreement, taking into account the interests of each of the parties involved in the communication process, is called negotiations. During the discussion of any problem or controversial issue, the views are considered and the opinions of opponents are heard. Based on the goals pursued by the parties, a conflict situation arises, the solution of which lies in the search for compromises. Usually, negotiations lead to the settlement of disputes.
Discussions and agreements are everywhere in the modern world. At company board meetings, in everyday life and at work. Usually, the term "negotiations" refers to the mutual desire to reach an agreement. But there are situations in which an acceptablethe parties still do not find a solution.
In world practice, negotiations are conducted between the governments of countries. So, this is very relevant in military conflicts or disputes related to the economic and territorial stability of countries.
These types of negotiations are distinguished:
- positional;
- rational.
The first of the types can take place in soft or hard forms, with the second being considered more effective. Soft negotiations only lead to endless concessions and inefficiency in the negotiation process. A hard form guarantees success for any of the participants, or to a lesser extent for all opponents.
Rational negotiation is considered the most correct way to debate. Indeed, as a result of such, the parties receive a result equal to their concessions. That is, each compromise is considered commensurate with the proposals of the other side.
Another way to reach agreements is through separate negotiations. The difference lies in the fact that several participants create a kind of isolated society in secret from the military allies. One of the members of the association enters into negotiations with the enemy, defending his interests.
Separate negotiations
The essence of conducting communication between opponents lies in their secrecy or, rather, separation from other participants. This is how negotiations can proceed on the merger of companies, the sale and resale of individual branches of the business.
Soseparate negotiations what does it mean? Most often, this is a discussion of reaching a consensus between opponents without involving allies in these negotiations. The main goal of such discussions is to defend their interests and protect themselves from attackers, while deviating from the agreements concluded earlier.
History knows many such facts, and they can be called to some extent a betrayal. But separate negotiations between the warring coalitions pursue a common goal - the preservation of the state's integrity and independence, saving the lives of citizens and eliminating the risks of material losses. The party wishing to conclude a separate peace accepts a certain neutrality and undertakes not to oppose the aggressor.
Examples from history
What separate negotiations are can be learned from the lessons of the past. The most striking example was the discussion of peace between Russia and Germany during the First World War. The Soviet Union was looking for an alternative solution to normalize relations with the Quadruple Alliance.
The Brest talks show that the USSR sought to protect itself and defend its interests during the war. Also in 1941, the Union held negotiations with Nazi Germany, which, as you know, did not lead to anything.
Separate negotiations with Germany
The Soviet Union tried to reconcile with the enemy during two world wars. Negotiations were conducted by Russia in 1918 separately from the Entente, Germany acted from the Quadruple Alliance, to a lesser extent Austria-Hungary.
The Bolshevik leadership announced that a separate peace is based on agreements on the self-determination of states and national integrity. Thus, the Union tried to somehow smooth over its intentions to accept the conditions of the enemy.
In turn, Germany stated that it was absolutely not against supporting the proposals of the USSR, but on the condition that the Entente countries would also adhere to them. The participants in the Quadruple Alliance were well aware that neither England nor France would agree to this.
Terms of the Brest-Litovsk Agreement
The main principles put forward by the USSR were:
- exclusion of forcible annexation of reclaimed lands;
- independence of peoples oppressed during the war;
- political independence of peoples;
- granting the full right of self-determination to national groups to join the territories of a particular country;
- establishment by national minorities of their own laws and protection of their own interests;
- exclusion of military duties at the end of hostilities, neither side is financially liable to the other;
- guiding the principles set forth in the self-determination of colonies.
The Union sought to preserve the lands lost by tsarist Russia during the war. To annex the B altic countries and Poland. Thus, the Bolsheviks built a defense against the capitalist system of Europe.
Offerseparate peace of Germany in World War II
The confrontation with Nazi Germany had a classic course of development. At the beginning of the war, when the Union was not ready to attack, the government began to conduct separate negotiations with the Reichstag. After, in 1945, the situation changed radically, and Hitler sought to make peace with the USSR.
In 1941, Stalin made big concessions, offering Hitler the B altic States, Moldova, and later Belarus and Ukraine as compensation. To which the Reichstag did not agree, many German politicians considered this refusal a mistake.
Until 1944, separate negotiations between the Allies and Germany continued. But the conditions became less and less attractive for the aggressor.
In general, one can say about separate negotiations that this is a natural process in any military confrontation. It is always present and is a rational decision of the rival countries to get out of the conflict with acceptable losses.
